How have other states handled Satanic Temple or similar group displays in public buildings?
Executive summary
States have taken a mix of courtroom enforcement, permit approvals, legislative proposals, and administrative reversals when confronted with The Satanic Temple’s (TST) attempts to place displays or gain access to public forums; courts have sometimes rejected its claims and sometimes required governments to treat it like any other group, while local backlash and vandalism have often driven the practical outcomes [1] [2] [3]. The pattern is legal contestation: TST pursues suits and appeals, municipalities oscillate between permitting and rescinding, legislatures have at times tried (and in at least one case failed) to bar such displays, and law enforcement responses to vandalism or threats vary by state [4] [5] [6].
1. How courts have drawn the lines — mixed legal wins and losses
Federal and state courts have not given a uniform victory to TST; appellate rulings have sometimes rejected its free‑speech or establishment‑clause claims on procedural or factual grounds rather than on a broad constitutional principle, as in Boston where an appeals court found TST lacked the community ties the city’s custom favored and therefore affirmed dismissal while warning about council practices [1] [7]. Other litigation has produced dismissals on standing or procedural grounds — for example, TST’s challenges to state abortion informed‑consent laws in Missouri were unsuccessful and were affirmed on appeal [8] [9]. At the same time, TST presents strategy via active litigation pages outlining ongoing suits and plans to press perceived First Amendment violations, signaling continued courtroom challenges across states [4] [10].
2. Permits and equal‑access decisions — some cities approve, others rescind under pressure
Municipal reactions vary: in New Hampshire the City of Concord initially issued a permit and the Baphomet statue was erected alongside other religious displays before it was vandalized, demonstrating that some localities will permit TST exhibits consistent with their permit rules [2] [6]. By contrast, some school districts and local governments have reversed approvals after public outcry, prompting civil‑rights litigation — the Saucon Valley School District initially approved an After School Satan Club but then prohibited it, leading to an ACLU lawsuit alleging viewpoint discrimination [11]. These patterns show that local officials sometimes prioritize avoiding controversy over strict adherence to neutral permitting policies, which then invites legal challenge [11] [2].
3. Legislatures and policy proposals — efforts to prohibit versus the failure to ban
State legislatures have occasionally tried to preempt such displays; the Arizona Senate considered a bill (SB1279) to prohibit Satanic displays on public property, but that bill failed to pass, illustrating limits on legislative responses and the political difficulty of crafting viewpoint‑neutral rules that can withstand constitutional scrutiny [5]. When legislatures or executives attempt blunt suppressive actions, the result can be more litigation and potential federal constitutional issues — an outcome TST appears to welcome as part of a broader rights strategy [5] [4].
4. Public reaction, vandalism, and law‑enforcement consequences
Practical outcomes are often shaped by public backlash and criminal acts: Concord’s Baphomet was vandalized twice and police investigations and a suspect identification followed, showing that the real‑world fate of a permitted display can be determined by hostile actors and police enforcement rather than permitting policy alone [2]. Cities sometimes cite the risk of promoting “messages antithetical to [their] own” when rethinking flag or display programs, a rationale that has led to program suspensions and further litigation, such as Boston’s suspension of its flag‑raising program amid litigation [12].
5. What this pattern means for other states and officials
The recurring lesson across states is that neutral, content‑blind permit procedures and consistent enforcement are the safest legal ground: when municipalities apply standard rules and document reasons tied to neutral policies, courts are less likely to find viewpoint discrimination, but reversals driven by public pressure invite litigation and often unfavorable publicity [1] [11]. For officials seeking to avoid lawsuits, the data from these cases suggest either uniformly applying forum rules or accepting that allowing controversial but lawful displays will likely result in both litigation and heightened local conflict — outcomes that have already played out in New Hampshire, Boston, Iowa, Missouri, and elsewhere [2] [1] [5] [9].